Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 17, 2012 9:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Blazing away at a range on the weekend is not recurring training. Perhaps more will come out of this once the investigation progresses. I'd be surprised to find out she took part in any IDPA level of training.

Some pro-gun people may seem unconcerned about those who don't follow the rules - the truth is most of us despise those morons. It's a matter of discipline and a zero defect mind set.

Stricter access for who? How exactly will stricter access laws translate to the criminal element of society who will simply obtain the weapons illegally?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 17, 2012 9:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

If stricter access wouldn't prevent it, how exactly would hoping for a change in human nature so that morons can never end up with guns anymore work out better?

The problem IS the morons. The criminal morons and the legal morons. Whether or not she was one, she undoubtedly thought she wasn't. And it doesn't matter when people are dead whether the gun came through a moron who didn't follow rules or a criminal who didn't follow rules, does it? People are still dead.

And, really, look at the numbers: Are there more criminals in the world with a desire and a tendency to target innocent folks, or are there more people in the world who are morons, or just lax with rules, imperfect, might have a lapse in judgment or have guns in the house around someone else who does, or who don't have "discipline and a zero defect mind set"? Personally I think that's quite a larger category than dangerous criminals who are out to get us and our loved ones with their guns and home invasions.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 17, 2012 9:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

You've asked a great question. My guess is there are probably more idiots out there than criminals. The big difference between the accidental moron and the criminal is that you have to act to respond to asocial violence or you will be killed or injured. You can't just walk away from the criminal who has determined that you are going to be a target.

It doesn't take long at all to determine that your brother in law or neighbor is unskilled, untrained or careless with a firearm. You simply choose to not be anywhere near that person.

We were at a Christmas party several years ago at the home of a friend with an outdoor range. My wife and I were shooting with a good friend who is a SEAL. One of the other guests came up and without asking, opened up and started shooting downrange. His barrel discipline was horrendous. I had yanked my wife back off the line the first time his barrel crossed the 10:00 position. The second he finished his magazine and the slide on his gun was locked back he was on his face with the SEAL's knee in the back of his neck and his other foot on his shooting hand. The SEAL disassembled the weapon in about three seconds, threw the firing spring into the woods, yanked the guy to his feet and physically removed him from the range.

There are some things you just don't accept. I can and do choose to not be around those whose proficiency and responsibility is in question. I don't have much of a choice other than response in kind to a criminal who has targeted me or my family.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 18, 2012 7:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Ah, nothing like squeezing off a few rounds to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. I love America.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicharIie Date: Dec 18, 2012 8:36am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

my weapons training began and ended in 1966. I would not even consider owning a firearm without now taking a safety course and lots of time at the firing range. A 22Mag long barrel handgun sounds good

Btw, tho I use the term "gun" I do own a rather useless one, but it still aims true - to about 3 feet ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 18, 2012 9:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

I'm not as anti-gun as most of you probably think I am. I believe there are circumstances under which I even might want a gun. If I lived in the wilderness or very far away from law enforcement, I'd probably want some kind of basic firearm to use against bears and such. I'm also not opposed to hunting, and believe that hunters should be able to own a reasonable collection. I just think that there are reasonable limits that we should place on the kinds of guns and ammo that should be permitted.